Taking a humorous but analytical look at just about anything in the spirit of Groucho Marx: I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member!
United States Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) died late last night, according to a statement released by his family early today.
The ironies of Kennedy's life and death are many. He, who was very, very rich, championed the causes of the less-well-off. He, the youngest son of his generation of "America's Royal Family," of whom little was expected until his older brothers died or had been assassinated, had the most direct and lasting impact (through all the legislation he worked for over the decades) on America. He cared about reforming America's broken health care system; he died of a brain tumor. He was expected by his family to "carry the torch" and become president [which he didn't want to do, and which explains all the stupid things he did over the years to sabotage himself . . . --Ed.], but the most important thing he did towards the end of his life was pass that torch to Barack Obama.
I am hoping against hope that the current health care reform bill, with the public option, will pass--and quickly--as a tribute to the "Lion of the Senate." After all, it was his most cherished cause. I fear, however, that Kennedy's death means the end of any shot meaningful health care reform for the foreseeable future.
I've read any number of online comments about the news, and the haters are out in force. The venom spewing from "the people" is, frankly, not just vile, but shocking. I'll bet if you asked most of those hatemongers if they considered themselves to be good Christians, they'd say "of course." In a heartbeat. And never see the contradiction between their behavior and their expression of faith.
John and Robert Kennedy both appealed to Americans' better natures--they encouraged us to strive, to be better, and to do better. Ted Kennedy spent his life and his time putting those aspirations into effect for the benefit of all of us. I am ashamed that so many Americans see fit to spit on his life and his work, especially so since he did the work he did for them and their benefit--whether they are capaple of or willing to recognizing it or not.
And I'm not sure I feel fine. I just read an article in "The Huffington Post," by Larry FLint . . . and, I am ashamed to admit, I agree with much of what he said. God help me--the man is a total sleazeball, who made a huge fortune off the exploitation and degradation of women, but when he's correct, he's correct. He said that the real war in America isn't between the left and the right--it's between the rich and the poor . . . and he's on the side of the poor, because the rich are systematically screwing them over while also reducing the middle class to poverty.
I cannot even begin to describe the depth of my own consternation at this turn of events. I am trying to comfort myself with the wisdom of the late, great Ann Landers: even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Granted, she was talking about an analog, 12-hour-cycle clock, but still . . .
Maybe I'll feel not so disgusted with myself about it once the shock wears off. In the meantime, I'm going to go wash. With lots of soap. "Unclean! Unclean!"
I just listened to President Obama's prepared remarks and answers to questions at an Organizing For America event that was held in Washington DC and streamed over the Internet. As always, I continue to be amazed at how comfortable the president is in his own skin; how he's not afraid to engage in a little pointed humor; and how he speaks clearly and directly--and gives a straight answer to a straight question. Most of the time.
My biggest concern about the current health care reform legislation is that no reform that passes without including the so-called "public option" will have sufficient teeth to put the bite on the current excesses of the private, for profit, health insurers and the other big industry insiders (like the pharmaceutical companies) which have raked in obscene profits while literally bankrupting hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans.
But the president will not commit to the public option. He says "it's important" but that it's "only one component of real health care reform." From everything I know about the issue, and presuming that a true single-payer system is not even on the table, however, the public option seems to be the sine qua non, the linchpin, the very foundation for all the other reforms he's advocating.
So why won't he just come out and commit to it? In the past, I have expressed great admiration for his grasp of politics as "the art of the possible." I still hold that to be true. I think, however, that he's being overly cautious in his estimation of what is, in fact, possible. I cannot escape the suspicion that on this issue, the American public is way, WAY ahead of everyone in Washington. I have seen reported the results of poll after poll after poll, all showing that over 76% of Americans support the public option when its terms are described accurately. On the other hand, several other credible polls show that as the dog days of August have come and gone, public support for the "public option," when called by that name, is decreasing.
Maybe the problem really is with the term "public option." Maybe the powers that be, the ones which do not wish to see their profits drop even one red cent, have managed to poison the well. Maybe they've so polluted the waters about what a "public option" is that the president is trying to get away from the term while retaining its substance. Or maybe I'm just blowing smoke--though I doubt it. I'm a lifelong non-smoker, remember?
My own experiences with both the public and private health care industries have taught me that all the alleged dangers of the public option are already occurring at the hands of private, for-profit insurers. And that the public option [assuming that it will be structured similarly to Medicare, as the currently-proposed legislation has it--Ed.], while capable of wrongfully denying coverage, at least will have an appeals process in place--which may be slow, but will be unbiased. Wrongfully denied coverage decisions can be overturned. Furthermore, you can't be held liable for paying for the costs of the treatment(s) in question while your appeal is in process. Nor will you lose your coverage, either because of your condition or because of your appeal.
As it is now, however, if your private insurer drops you, you're dropped. Period. Yes, there are steps to appeal that you can take, but they are not just slow--they are expensive. The insurers can afford to wait you out. Assume that you have something seriously wrong with you that is treatable, but expensive [and note that the longer it goes untreated, the worse and more expensive both it and its treatment will get--Ed.], and your coverage is denied. You can choose to appeal, and spend whatever other funds you have on the costs of pursuing that. Or you can choose to pay out of pocket for the medical treatments you need and forgo any appeal--you will never get reimbursed for what you spent on treatments for wrongfully-denied claims, by the way. Or, if you can't afford either of those options, you can just spend what little money you have on your everyday expenses, and die while that which was dire, but treatable, becomes fatal due to the lack of treatment and care you were wrongfully denied in the first place.
Let's face it: all that insurance is, is a wager. Further, you are betting on yourself to lose, for that's what will trigger the release of funds from the insurer. [Why do I suddenly hear Beck singing "I'm a loser, baby, so why don't you kill me"?--Ed] And the bet is rigged, for even if you lose, the insurer always has tons o' fine print to cite to justify its refusal to pay your claim. We are collectively being had, people. It's not just time for a change; it's overdue for a change.
But is a real change going to happen? I wonder, when I hear the president saying only that the private option is "important." I know his motive is to encourage both political parties to work together to find solutions. And while I agree that bipartisanship is a worthy goal, I also recognize that it isn't going to happen unless both sides want to play. Right now, the GOP seems more concerned with doing everything it can to mess up the Obama administration's efforts for the sake of its own presupposed electoral gains next year than it seems concerned with doing what is really in the best interests of America's citizens--all of us.
I just hope I'm the only one falling victim to issue fatigue, and that there are still plenty of people out there with the health, the strength, the energy, the vision, and the will to see genuine and substantial health care reform enacted. Because if I'm not the only one succumbing to issue fatigue, we're all SOL.
Add my voice to those who decry the loss of civic discourse in this country, as evidenced by the behavior of far too many people at the various town hall meetings members of Congress are holding during this August recess. The objections of those who oppose the current proposed health care reforms would have a lot more credibility if their proponents would present them in a calm, rational way . . . as opposed to the shouting, name-calling, blind rejection of facts with which those people disagree, and generally obnoxious behavior we're seeing now. At least the people who attended President Obama's two meetings over this past weekend understood that. People are free to "agree to disagree." That's the entire point of living in a representative democracy. But we can do it with civility and respect, and still acknowledge what we have in common, which is our love of our country and our respect for its fundamental precepts--the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On a related note: those who are opposed to health care reform (i.e., everyone who stands to rake in less outrageous fortunes from their roles in the current system) have recognized the truth of the above observation, and are also making more insidious intrusions into the debate. I heard a report on NPR yesterday morning in which a pollster noted pointedly that President Obama's poll ratings have been going down as this health care "debate" has progressed. The pollster was from what is generally regarded as a "conservative think-tank" (if memory serves). His interpretation of the poll results was that Obama's ratings were falling in direct proportion to the increase in public awareness of the details of the proposed health care reforms.
So far, so good. But then he suggested that the public did not want the allegedly "radical" reforms that are being proposed. That killed his ability to analyze his poll numbers, for me at least. If the president's numbers are, in fact, falling, and it's because the public at large isn't liking what it's hearing about the proposed reforms, it's as likely as not that the public thinks the reforms do not go far enough. The pollster never addressed whether the poll's questions explored that possibility, leading me to think the poll's questions did not. The pollster also cited the level of acrimony at most of the town hall meetings as support for his interpretation. This, even after it has been well-demonstrated and well-documented that the loud and angry contingent disrupting the town hall meetings is (1) being pumped up to fury by lies about and distortions of the issues at hand; (2) full of people bused in from elsewhere, outside of the districts the town hall meetings are intended to serve; and (3) being orchestrated, shepherded, and guided by representatives of the health care interests which are going to make less-obscene profits [note well that that does NOT mean "NO profits"--Ed.] should the proposed reforms actually pass.
But what saddened me the most is that no one at NPR even questioned the veracity or accuracy of the pollster's interpretation of his data. We all would have been better off if the pollster had stopped after stating what the poll results said, period. His interpretation should not have been allowed to stand unquestioned. Letting them so stand gave them a level of credibility they did not deserve.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Then again, as I am reminded on a daily basis, my approach to things like this is not the norm. I am 100% incapable of living my life by the standard of "don't confuse me with the facts, for I've already made up my mind." But far, far too many people in this world cling to what they want to believe, what they prefer to believe, what they need to believe--as opposed to looking at things as they are and summoning up the flexibility to deal with reality.
Better the devil you know, I guess. What never ceases to amaze me about this is how frequently this behavior results in people acting against their own best interests. Disabled people without health care protesting the proposed health care reforms? Workers losing their benefits and even their jobs opposing unions? People whose families suffered generations of discrimination discriminating in turn against others? Residents of dying small towns rejecting financial reforms that would bring some measure of prosperity back to them?
On one level, it's incomprehensible to me. On another, I understand it perfectly well. It starts at home, and it's just as likely to come from the desire to justify one's own bad behavior toward others as anything else. That may seem ironic, given that behavior rooted in preserving one's perceived personal advantage manifests on the larger scale as support for things that run counter to one's own best interests . . . but the root in the same: the inability to cope with change, the fear of somehow losing a sense of control--even when that sense of control is itself an illusion.
Better the devil you know, indeed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Speaking of discrimination . . . my aunt recently sent me a diatribe from Patrick Buchanan about how blacks should be grateful that their ancestors were taken from their homes in Africa by force and enslaved for generations--and that even after slavery was ended and they were granted equal legal status under law [a status more honored in the violation than in the keeping, over the subsequent century--Ed.] and thus allowed to partake of the benefit of being Americans. Buchanan's ultimate point was that the lack of black gratitude is the root of all race-relations problems in this country.
I nearly puked. What a vile piece of racist crap! Consider: what value is held in higher regard by "Americans" of Buchanan's ilk than all others? Freedom. They don't like government; they don't like taxes; they don't like motorcycle helmet laws; in short, they don't like being told what to do. [They seem to have forgotten that in a society, we all implicitly contract to give up getting 100% of our own way 100% of the time for the greater benefits of living in a society, a community, which provides shared benefits AND burdens--Ed.] And yet blacks should be "grateful" that their ancestors forcibly had their freedom ripped away from them? That for centuries they were treated like property, not like human beings? That even after their legal status was made right, their factual status in society was still as beggars at the table of America's rich bounty? That they were relegated to slums, to crappy schools, and to vile jobs because they were not given the equal economic opportunity to partake of that bounty in the first place?
Puh-leeze.
What's worse, Buchanan, as a son of Irish immigrants, should be well aware of the history of discrimination against the Irish in this country. No, the Irish were never enslaved. Slavery was infinitely worse than anything they experienced. But that doesn't mean the white male Protestant power structure welcomed them. Even in job advertisements, "NINA" was noted clearly. "NINA." "No Irish Need Apply." If you look at political cartoons from the mid-19th century, the Irish were depicted just as savagely as were blacks--drunken, irresponsible brawlers, with monkey-like faces and childish [as opposed to "child-like"--Ed.] attitudes. The only discernible difference was in the color of their skin.
But Buchanan has assimilated himself into that same white male Protestant power structure. He was a speechwriter for Richard Nixon, for heaven's sake. Either he loathes himself and his background or he has sold it out for the sake of his own place close to the top of the power structure in America. Like Bill O'Reilly, he spouts the far right-wing GOP party line. They are both an embarrassment to people of Irish Catholic ancestry everywhere.
What's funnier (in a sick sort of way) is that they have so ingratiated themselves to the system that oppressed their ancestors, they have become oppressors themselves. "If I made it, anyone can make it. People who fail in America have no one to blame but themselves." Note that they have conveniently forgotten that they "made it" by becoming part of the traditional power structure, not by broadening that power structure to accept anyone not just like those already there. Reminds me of what has truthfully been said about George W. Bush: he was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple.
Which is why we are seeing such hate-fulled backlash against the president in certain quarters. They don't recognize that the "American pie" is big enough to feed everyone, and feed everyone quite well. They perceive only that their piece of the pie--or their tenuous connection to the present power structure--is going to shrink, and they think they are going to lose. When South Africa ended apartheid, similar fears were unleashed. The white minority, which had always held power, feared that giving any power to the black majority would result in their being treated as poorly as they had treated the blacks. By and large, however, such reprisals have not happened.
Nor will they happen [except in isolated incidents--I'm not saying anyone is perfect--Ed.] here. Nor am I singing "Kum-by-ah." There will always be threats and dangers in the world. But they are external, not internal. Just because the center of the power structure has shifted doesn't mean that "the haves" will suddenly become "the have-nots." We are ALL Americans, and the sooner we realize that, the better. For all of us.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Several religious [I use the term advisedly--Ed.] "leaders" of late have encouraged their flocks to bring their guns to church. No, not to turn them in, but to show support for the Second Amendment to the US Constitution and the individual's alleged right to bear arms at any time in any place. The GOP managed to attach an amendment allowing people to carry loaded guns in our national parks to a bill imposing long-needed and long-overdue restrictions on the excesses of credit card companies--a bill that President Obama signed. The larger goal was, on balance, more important than the loaded weapons provision. [The national parks amendment did include language prohibiting the carrying of such weapons where state laws prohibited it, however. I am a bit perplexed by this, but I gather that the concept of "states' rights" trumps even the "right to bear arms" in the eyes of those who wrote the amendment. But that weirdness is most properly a topic for another post.--Ed.]
Am I the only person in America who thinks this obnoxious insistence on carrying loaded guns is infantile? Some babies carry blankies; some suck on their pacifiers; some suck on their thumbs; some must have their weapons everywhere they go. Their guns are nothing but metal binkies.
In some ways, this juvenile--and loud--insistence on having their guns with them at all times is no different from the far-right Muslim insistence that women wear the burqa. It says a lot more about them and their lack of ability to control themselves than it does about what's going on in the world around them.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Still, this blind, unreasoning, stomp-your-feet insistence on having your "guns today, guns tomorrow, guns forever" is going to produce a whopper of an unintended consequence if the rich in this country keep getting richer at the expense of the disappearing economic middle class. Stable, successful societies have stable, large, and relatively prosperous economic middle classes. When that balance is upset, and there is a mountain-sized group of the poor at the bottom and a mole-sized group of the über-rich at the top, there will eventually be violence. The Second Amendment fanatics sense this; that's why they insist on having their guns with them at all times and their gated communities to which they can retreat.
But if Second Amendment rights are absolute and inviolable, the poor are going to have plenty of guns of their own, too. And that's what the gun nuts have forgotten. I am mind-boggled by this, because it's plain as the news in the daily paper that where guns are not just allowed, but encouraged, murder rates go up. Omaha passed a concealed-carry law a couple of years ago; the murder rates subsequently have skyrocketed. So far, the majority of the violence has been in the poorer parts of town [self-inflicted wounds, if you will--Ed.], but the hopeless rage that unremitting poverty can engender is going to spill all over the "nicer" areas of town at some point. As much as I want to live forever, just to see how everything turns out, I do not want to see this. I hope I am dead and long gone before it happens, because that's an end for America I simply do not want to see.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
On a lighter note: Have you seen the Gas-Ex commercial wherein the HR manager is reviewing an applicant's resume? He has certain bodily function problems on his mind, and at one point, he hears her saying, "You're flatulent in three languages." I roar with laughter every time I hear that. I wonder if it's because my ex-husband fancies himself to be a linguist . . .
Have you seen the Kingsford Matchlight charcoal ad wherein the husband shoos his wife away from the barbecue grill, essentially telling her that since he doesn't go into the kitchen to make salad, she shouldn't try to light his fire [pun intended--Ed.]? He says "there's a technique," and then strikes a match and tosses it in . . . and the charcoal ignites. His wife, with appropriately subtle sarcasm, says "Wow." She then backs away, telling their guests that everything is OK.
I don't know the "genius" [and I use the term very loosely, indeed--Ed.] who created the ad; nor do I know the "geniuses" [ditto--Ed.] at Kingsford who approved it. So I am left with no way even to speculate a possible answer to my question: Why would ANYONE want to buy a product that says its users are idiots?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I used to think that language was the thing that held America together, given our collective fundamental diversity of ethnic backgrounds and life experiences; but I am beginning to wonder. I've been doing a great deal of proofreading work of late. I am appalled by the lack of care and attention that intelligent and otherwise educated people give to their native tongue. And that's after I've made allowance for the fact that everyone, myself included, speaks less precisely than s/he writes, even in relatively formal situations, such as testifying under oath.
No one seems to care whether his/her subjects, verbs, and/or pronouns match--or even whether he/she includes subjects, verbs, and/or pronouns in the first place. No one seems to care whether his/her questions or answers to questions are understandable or responsive. [I especially hate it when someone is asked a "yes or no" question and gives an answer that says everything under the sun EXCEPT for "yes" or "no."--Ed.]
People have been making similar complaints about such signs of the decline and fall of civilization from, well, the decline and fall of Rome (if not earlier). Between the twin battering rams of modern high technology and the lack of organized, official grammar education in our elementary and junior high schools, however, we have exponentially increased the rate of decline. If we cannot understand each other, how can we expect to hang together as a society?
Then again, why am I spitting into the wind? Entropy increases. Still, whenever my time comes, I'd like to leave this "mortal coil" knowing I did my best to leave things better, not worse, for those who will follow.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
And what in the world is wrong with the people who still insist that Barack Obama is not legitimately the president because he's supposedly not a native-born US citizen? His birth certificate HAS been produced (despite all claims to the contrary); two different 1961 newspaper notices reporting his birth have been discovered and publicized; his election was certified by the US Congress, in accordance with the terms of the Constitution--and Congress never would have done that if there had been any legitimate doubts about Obama's ability to satisfy all Constitutionally-mandated requirements. Before the election last November, a right-wing web site even published all the information confirming that Obama is, in fact, a native-born US citizen. Besides, his mother was a US citizen, which automatically confers US citizenship on him. And Hawaii WAS a state in 1961.
The sad, simple truth is that these people are racists, pure and simple, but they don't want to say so--at least, not overtly. So they've latched onto this "issue" to spew their venom while disguising their real agenda. They are a bunch of small-minded, sad, hateful fools. And no matter how much proof is presented, they won't believe it. And they do America, the country they supposedly love so much, a great disservice.
I really hate willful ignorance. But I must remind myself that no one is ever going to be able to change their minds. Mark Twain was right: Never teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
